US Supreme court have overturned Roe V Wade

[InitialDave]

ATG said:

Unfortunately you cannot reduce this to women and their doctors just making their decisions in private. That requires the women and the doctors to always behave ethically, individually and collectively, without any external regulation or oversight. We don't apply that degree of blind faith to any equivalent situations. Why on earth would we do that with abortion? What would safeguard women from poor medical advice? If as a society we thought late-term abortion on non-medical grounds was unjustified, which is precisely what most societies that allow abortions seem to think, how would we protect the unborn child from doctors and mothers who wished to proceed with an abortion anyway?

I'd rather that than what they have now, and I'm far less concerned with the vanishingly small number of instances where an inappropriate abortion might be carried out than I am with the large number of non-theoretical, actually existing women who will suffer and die as things stand.

I have no interest in horse trading specifics of when abortion should be allowed with people who are acting in bad faith because what they actually want is for it to not to happen at all.

So yes, I can reduce it to just being women and doctors being the ones to make these decisions in private.

[Rufus Stone]

57 Chevy said:

Has anyone else noticed how many of the states that are banning abortion still have the death penalty

You don't need to be confused.

One is the ultimate punishment for a crime, the other is the chance of being born and living their life.

[ATG]

InitialDave said:

ATG said:

Unfortunately you cannot reduce this to women and their doctors just making their decisions in private. That requires the women and the doctors to always behave ethically, individually and collectively, without any external regulation or oversight. We don't apply that degree of blind faith to any equivalent situations. Why on earth would we do that with abortion? What would safeguard women from poor medical advice? If as a society we thought late-term abortion on non-medical grounds was unjustified, which is precisely what most societies that allow abortions seem to think, how would we protect the unborn child from doctors and mothers who wished to proceed with an abortion anyway?

I'd rather that than what they have now, and I'm far less concerned with the vanishingly small number of instances where an inappropriate abortion might be carried out than I am with the large number of non-theoretical, actually existing women who will suffer and die as things stand.

I have no interest in horse trading specifics of when abortion should be allowed with people who are acting in bad faith because what they actually want is for it to not to happen at all.

So yes, I can reduce it to just being women and doctors being the ones to make these decisions in private.

You're free to reduce it to whatever you like, but it doesn't make it convincing. Why not favour a settlement like the one we have in the UK and loads of other countries where there is an established legal framework and supervision that allows women to obtain abortions? Surely that's the better system?

The reality is that we have to horse-trade with people who don't want abortion at all, because we live in democracies and their opinions count. A compromise that places some limits on abortion is better than nothing for people who oppose abortion and it is not the end of the world for those of us who think abortions should be available. And just because some compromise is struck, there's no reason why either side should consider the matter closed. Both are free to keep campaigning. Why shouldn't they? So on what basis do you say anti-abortionists are acting in "bad faith"?

[thewarlock]

Rufus Stone said:

You don't need to be confused.

One is the ultimate punishment for a crime, the other is the chance of being born and living their life.

Ah, so killing is bad.

Usually. But not all the time.

[ATG]

57 Chevy said:

Has anyone else noticed how many of the states that are banning abortion still have the death penalty

And daft gun laws.

It's a nation formed to a considerable extent by people who weren't prepared to compromise their personal rather puritanical religious convictions with their original society, so they packed up, left home, and found an area to colonise where they could do their own thing without interference from anyone else. So you're left with a culture that favours individual self-sufficiency and freedom, a suspicion of government authority and a tendency for rather insular, simplistic, black and white moral philosophy.

Funnily enough the areas of the country which are melting pots of many different creeds, colours and cultures are also far, far more tolerant of difference and change.

[InitialDave]

ATG said:

So on what basis do you say anti-abortionists are acting in "bad faith"?

Because they are anti-abortionists.

They don't want them to happen safely and in line with our best medical understanding of what's appropriate.

They want them to not happen at all, and intentionally bog the discussion down in debate over minutiae. That's the purpose of banging on about what-ifs and provably nonsense points about "detectable heartbeats" etc.

[smn159]

Lots of them seem to be old people, foisting their own religious prejudices on the young

[anonymous-user]

smn159 said:

Lots of them seem to be old people, foisting their own religious prejudices on the young

Old people who had their religious prejudices forced onto them when young and now want to return the favour. Idiots.

[ATG]

InitialDave said:

ATG said:

So on what basis do you say anti-abortionists are acting in "bad faith"?

Because they are anti-abortionists.

They don't want them to happen safely and in line with our best medical understanding of what's appropriate.

They want them to not happen at all, and intentionally bog the discussion down in debate over minutiae. That's the purpose of banging on about what-ifs and provably nonsense points about "detectable heartbeats" etc.

But that's not bad faith. They're just trying to push the line of compromise as far as possible in their direction.

I'd agree entirely that detectable heartbeats and all other attempts to draw a line between "alive" and "not alive", or having rights and not having rights, are 99% codswallop. But if both sides try to discuss the subject in those terms, and they do, then obviously that's the kind of bidding war you get into. If someone has a world view in which life has intrinsic value you inevitably end up horse-trading about when life starts, when sufficient value has accumulated or has the reasonable likelihood of accruing in the future, etc, etc. And there are never going to be any clear cut boundaries that can be deduced. It all comes down to people's own individual moral instincts.

[smn159]

garyhun said:

Old people who had their religious prejudices forced onto them when young and now want to return the favour. Idiots.

It's judgemental, authoritarian hate, dressed up and rebranded.

[ATG]

smn159 said:

garyhun said:

Old people who had their religious prejudices forced onto them when young and now want to return the favour. Idiots.

It's judgemental, authoritarian hate, dressed up and rebranded.

It might be in some cases, but equally we should all recognise that a lot of these people genuinely believe that babies are being killed and if that's what they really believe then of course they are morally obliged to try to stop it from happening.

[deckster]

ATG said:

But that's not bad faith. They're just trying to push the line of compromise as far as possible in their direction.

I'd agree entirely that detectable heartbeats and all other attempts to draw a line between "alive" and "not alive", or having rights and not having rights, are 99% codswallop. But if both sides try to discuss the subject in those terms, and they do, then obviously that's the kind of bidding war you get into. If someone has a world view in which life has intrinsic value you inevitably end up horse-trading about when life starts, when sufficient value has accumulated or has the reasonable likelihood of accruing in the future, etc, etc. And there are never going to be any clear cut boundaries that can be deduced. It all comes down to people's own individual moral instincts.

It's bad faith because they aren't interested in compromise. The anti-abortionists aren't actually interested in heartbeats or viability, they just throw those in to muddy the waters and change the conversation so that it starts from the point that abortions aren't always allowed. They make conversation 100% about the foetus, and not at all about the mother or the wider impact on society. They want to control the conversation so that the only logical conclusion is to not allow abortions at all.

Whereas if you start from the point that women are entitled to control over what happens to their body, the conversation is completely different. But that isn't a discussion that the anti-abortionists can win, so they do everything they can to stop it from happening.

[anonymous-user]

ATG said:

smn159 said:

garyhun said:

Old people who had their religious prejudices forced onto them when young and now want to return the favour. Idiots.

It's judgemental, authoritarian hate, dressed up and rebranded.

It might be in some cases, but equally we should all recognise that a lot of these people genuinely believe that babies are being killed and if that's what they really believe then of course they are morally obliged to try to stop it from happening.

They genuinely believe it because they’ve been brainwashed to believe it their entire lives.

I have no time for them and their ridiculous views. They should be pitied but they are too dangerous for that.

[dvs_dave]

ATG said:

57 Chevy said:

Has anyone else noticed how many of the states that are banning abortion still have the death penalty

And daft gun laws.

It's a nation formed to a considerable extent by people who weren't prepared to compromise their personal rather puritanical religious convictions with their original society, so they packed up, left home, and found an area to colonise where they could do their own thing without interference from anyone else. So you're left with a culture that favours individual self-sufficiency and freedom, a suspicion of government authority and a tendency for rather insular, simplistic, black and white moral philosophy.

Funnily enough the areas of the country which are melting pots of many different creeds, colours and cultures are also far, far more tolerant of difference and change.

Pro-life, pro-death, pro-guns…….aaaaand pro-Trump.

Noticing a pattern yet?

[ATG]

deckster said:

ATG said:

But that's not bad faith. They're just trying to push the line of compromise as far as possible in their direction.

I'd agree entirely that detectable heartbeats and all other attempts to draw a line between "alive" and "not alive", or having rights and not having rights, are 99% codswallop. But if both sides try to discuss the subject in those terms, and they do, then obviously that's the kind of bidding war you get into. If someone has a world view in which life has intrinsic value you inevitably end up horse-trading about when life starts, when sufficient value has accumulated or has the reasonable likelihood of accruing in the future, etc, etc. And there are never going to be any clear cut boundaries that can be deduced. It all comes down to people's own individual moral instincts.

It's bad faith because they aren't interested in compromise. The anti-abortionists aren't actually interested in heartbeats or viability, they just throw those in to muddy the waters and change the conversation so that it starts from the point that abortions aren't always allowed. They make conversation 100% about the foetus, and not at all about the mother or the wider impact on society. They want to control the conversation so that the only logical conclusion is to not allow abortions at all.

Whereas if you start from the point that women are entitled to control over what happens to their body, the conversation is completely different. But that isn't a discussion that the anti-abortionists can win, so they do everything they can to stop it from happening.

I don't agree. It's no more or less disingenuous to start from the perspective "that women are entitled to control over what happens to their body," as that clearly is not the only concern, anymore than the rights of the foetus could possibly be the only concern.

Unless you've got a somewhat peculiar view of when life starts and how a life's value arises, you end up having to try to balance the value of the mother's life (in a broad sense) versus the value of the gametes/embryo/foetus/baby. Some people might arrive at the conclusion that both lives should be treated with equal value because any utilitarian comparison is abhorrent, so you'd only allow abortion if the "child" was very likely to die whatever you did, but the mother could almost certainly be saved. That perspective is held by plenty of people who the rest of us might call "anti-abortion". Relatively few people hold the view that it's all in the lap of fate, and if both mother and child die, oh well. Those lunatics would be amongst the only people who want a total ban on abortions.

[ATG]

garyhun said:

ATG said:

smn159 said:

garyhun said:

Old people who had their religious prejudices forced onto them when young and now want to return the favour. Idiots.

It's judgemental, authoritarian hate, dressed up and rebranded.

It might be in some cases, but equally we should all recognise that a lot of these people genuinely believe that babies are being killed and if that's what they really believe then of course they are morally obliged to try to stop it from happening.

They genuinely believe it because they’ve been brainwashed to believe it their entire lives.

I have no time for them and their ridiculous views. They should be pitied but they are too dangerous for that.

Guess what? If that's what you genuinely believe, then you're just as daft as a hard-nosed religious bigot, because you're thinking in an equally blinkered fashion and are being just as dismissive of their perspective as they are of yours.

Welcome to the stupidity of the culture wars.

[deckster]

ATG said:

Those lunatics would be amongst the only people who want a total ban on abortions.

And yet, here we are with "those lunatics" making the law in a significant proportion of the states of the US.

[anonymous-user]

ATG said:

garyhun said:

ATG said:

smn159 said:

garyhun said:

Old people who had their religious prejudices forced onto them when young and now want to return the favour. Idiots.

It's judgemental, authoritarian hate, dressed up and rebranded.

It might be in some cases, but equally we should all recognise that a lot of these people genuinely believe that babies are being killed and if that's what they really believe then of course they are morally obliged to try to stop it from happening.

They genuinely believe it because they’ve been brainwashed to believe it their entire lives.

I have no time for them and their ridiculous views. They should be pitied but they are too dangerous for that.

Guess what? If that's what you genuinely believe, then you're just as daft as a hard-nosed religious bigot, because you're thinking in an equally blinkered fashion and are being just as dismissive of their perspective as they are of yours.

Welcome to the stupidity of the culture wars.

Not really. I’ve met and discussed religion with these types before and to a man/woman they were brainwashed by their parents and will do the same to their own children. They deserved to be dismissed because their views are so distorted.

Anywhoo, off to enjoy the evening sun.

[gregs656]

Getting into the weeds on abortion distracts, I think, from the paradigm shift in the Supreme Court and what it means going forward.

[ATG]

deckster said:

ATG said:

Those lunatics would be amongst the only people who want a total ban on abortions.

And yet, here we are with "those lunatics" making the law in a significant proportion of the states of the US.

I think six states were expected to go for a total ban. Many more states fall back to a six-week cut-off, which is of course tantamount to an outright ban, but clearly isn't the same thing at all if you really believed that all abortions are totally wrong. In other words there's a spectrum of daftness being flushed out here.